Crystal Miller
"Destruction by Appropriation I & II"
Can you name the above reproductions of famous art pieces? And ask yourself, “at what point does reproduction lend itself to the complete murder of the original?”
Walter Benjamin’s article deals heavily with the issue of reproduction in today’s society. Benjamin suggests that with reproductions, value and importance are then looked upon with scrutiny. He suggests that the new is “criticized with aversion”. The issue of reproducibility can weave itself through a personal series of prints, to the subject of appropriation. To appropriate an image, one has to use its “likeness”, representation, or reproduction. In order to do so, the “aura” (Benjamin) of the image is then destroyed as it is put into an artist’s new context. The reproduction, and all of its connotations, is then used in order to translate the new artist’s new meaning. However, all the value to the former is lost. This is what I am exploring in my images. Digital media, such as photoshop, has swiftly inserted an ease of manipulation that, in the same click of a button, doesn't even reveal the evidence of the hand. The two famous art pieces that are depicted above are easily available for reproduction in our society. The imagery is open to be violated by another’s hand. At what point is the “aura” of the original completely lost? Or, can its fragments alone keep it alive? If these above images are seen as graffiti stickers strewn across New York City, would it then de-value the original (not literally, but in a sense)... since it then outwardly exaggerates how it was so easily violated, detroyed..and now has lost its esteemed limitations to only the art bourgeois?
Images: Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, Shepard Fairey's Obama Hope poster
"Destruction by Appropriation I & II"
Can you name the above reproductions of famous art pieces? And ask yourself, “at what point does reproduction lend itself to the complete murder of the original?”
Walter Benjamin’s article deals heavily with the issue of reproduction in today’s society. Benjamin suggests that with reproductions, value and importance are then looked upon with scrutiny. He suggests that the new is “criticized with aversion”. The issue of reproducibility can weave itself through a personal series of prints, to the subject of appropriation. To appropriate an image, one has to use its “likeness”, representation, or reproduction. In order to do so, the “aura” (Benjamin) of the image is then destroyed as it is put into an artist’s new context. The reproduction, and all of its connotations, is then used in order to translate the new artist’s new meaning. However, all the value to the former is lost. This is what I am exploring in my images. Digital media, such as photoshop, has swiftly inserted an ease of manipulation that, in the same click of a button, doesn't even reveal the evidence of the hand. The two famous art pieces that are depicted above are easily available for reproduction in our society. The imagery is open to be violated by another’s hand. At what point is the “aura” of the original completely lost? Or, can its fragments alone keep it alive? If these above images are seen as graffiti stickers strewn across New York City, would it then de-value the original (not literally, but in a sense)... since it then outwardly exaggerates how it was so easily violated, detroyed..and now has lost its esteemed limitations to only the art bourgeois?
Images: Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, Shepard Fairey's Obama Hope poster
No comments:
Post a Comment